Revenge Porn Is Now Illegal in England and Wales

Following atrocious cases of women “virtually raped” and harassed by explicit photographs of themselves with their ex-lovers, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will receive Royal Assent and become law. Offenders will face up to two years in jail.

Images and videos sent through social networks including Facebook and Twitter, and even those sent through MMS or SMS are also considered.

Scotland and Northern Ireland are considering to implement similar laws. The Scottish Government also announced its plans to consult on making revenge porn a offense with a category of its own.

In the UK alone, there are 30 revenge porn websites publishing thousands of individuals’ explicit photographs without their consent. Meanwhile, successfully removing one’s media from one revenge porn website isn’t enough as the media makes its way to other websites.

According to England and Wales Police Forces, 149 allegations of revenge porn had been made from January 2012 to July 2014. Six of these cases were met with police action.

According to Former Culture Secretary Maria Miller:

"By putting this in place the government has given young women the opportunity to protect themselves from their lives being blighted.

"When you speak to the victims of these crimes, many say that it feels as if you've been virtually raped.

"You can't underestimate the impact of having an image distributed to many people around the world."

Obama Proposes Stricter Privacy Laws For US

US President Barack Obama on Monday proposed that the country strengthen its laws against identity theft and hacking. He argues that with tech advances come privacy risks for many citizens.

He said that tech services should issue a notification when consumer information is hacked and efforts must be realised to protect student’s private data.

Obama said that the recent hack on Sony Pictures Entertainment is an example of a tech problem that costs billions of dollars. With virtually many personal information in the country available online, lives could turn upside down in an instant.

He argued that the age of digital technology innovation had created vast amounts of vulnerabilities for US citizens. 

"This is a direct threat to the economic security of American families and we've got to stop it," Obama said in a speech at the Federal Trade Commission. "If we're going to be connected, we need to be protected."

Just as Obama finished speaking, the Twitter and YouTube accounts for U.S. Central Command were taken over by hackers who claimed to be working on behalf of Islamic State militants.

Meanwhile new tech laws have already been implemented by the start of this year. Check them in this list.

Google’s Case in the United Kingdom Could Clarify Country’s Privacy Laws

The Information Commissioner’s Office had intervened between Google and a group of UK Internet users because of its interests to clarify the jurisdiction of the country’s privacy laws.

The UK Internet users allege that Google used cookies to track their browsing activity using Apple’s Safari browser in 2011 and 2012 against their wishes. The case has been ongoing since 2013. This follows an earlier failed lawsuit against Google in the United States where the allegations could not be proved because the victims do not have evidence they were harmed.

However, the US FTC had fined google with $22.5 million for secretly bypassing Safari settings to 

collect information from unwilling users.

The UK High Court initially rejected the argument of the UK web users, which prompted the group to move their case into the United States. At this point, Google went to the Court of Appeal to try to overturn the ruling. This is when UK’s ICO intervened by submitting written evidence to the court.

According to an ICO Spokesman, it is interested in the case because it clarifies the issues about the jurisdiction of the law to serving civil claims against foreign companies. The ICO submitted written evidence to provide classes of personal data under the UK Data Protection act and when personal data processing is taking place.

Source

Church of England Calls to End Indefinite Detention of Detainees

The Church of England is calling on the UK government to end the indefinite detention of detainees in immigration removal centres. According to the Church of England, it places “considerable stress on detainees and their families.”

The Church will be contending with UK politicians, whom many in the seniority had considered the issue a “political football.”

Bishop of Croydon Jonathan Clark said “The main political parties have taken a judgment that they cannot say anything on this issue because they feel it will lose them votes by the million, so it has been left to those who don’t seek re-election to speak out.” 

They also said that the HM Inspectorate of Prisons no longer carries out a “safety survey” among its inmates. The inspectorate said that detainees had felt unsafe following the use of indefinite detention.

The Church made a comparison between asylum and prison detention. The official statement said “We normally think of safety in detention as a matter of not fearing assault, intimidation, discrimination, However, what detainees consistently reported as most likely to make them feel unsafe was the lack of certainty about their case.”

According to a Home Office spokesperson, “Detention is used as a last resort when people are found not to have a right to be in the UK and will not leave voluntarily, or when there is a serious risk they will abscond from bail. When we do detain people, it is for the minimum time possible, and the majority of detainees are held for less than two months. Detainees’ welfare is extremely important and we are committed to treating all those in our care with dignity and respect.”

Source

Should Northern Ireland Still Make Changes to Its Abortion Law?

Northern Ireland remains mum on the issue regarding abortion and still has a ban in place for the controversial activity. However, should they consider foetuses with possible birth defects that could shorten its lifespan for abortion?

Let’s get things straight. The UK legislation protects people from pain and suffering. Even our justice systems encourage people to report pain and suffering as clauses to gain recompense for damages. If children are made to suffer because of their birth defects by being alive, shouldn’t it count as child abuse and pain and suffering charges?

According to Justice Minister David Ford “I believe we owe it to people who have highlighted the case in the media and others who have suffered in silence that we address those issues which have caused significant concern.”

Sarah Ewart made her case public when she said she had to travel to London to have her child aborted because the baby was diagnosed with anecephaly, a severe brain anomaly that lowered the survival rate of her child even if it should survive after childbirth.

Having an abortion law in Northern Ireland would be helpful especially with the proper regulation of the industry and the proper legalities in place. It also lowers costs for those who intend to have an abortion.

Currently, North Ireland only allows mothers to have an abortion if the child is putting the mother’s life in grave danger. I don’t think this would be enough.

The Irony of the Ashya King Case

It is heartbreaking for parents to be separated from their children, especially during their time of need. The sad thing is that the emotional impact on parents seeing their child in pain and professionals unable to find a solution does not count as evidence. This is the situation of the Kings after they were arrested for “stealing” their son from the hospital.

Ashya was under medical orders not to be removed from his life supports as it could prove fatal to his condition. Defying orders because both parents lacked confidence in the methods of NHS medical procedures, the Kings stole away their son, sold their Spanish apartment to raise money for their son’s would-be proton beam therapy in Czech or any European country who provides the service.

Common sense was not too common in the aftermath of the parents’ arrests. Medical staff advised police that Ashya was in “grave danger.” Upon arrest, British legal authorities even had the nerve to request a criminal history review for the couple based on their actions.

In essence, the UK government’s logic is like this; the parents’ motive was to kidnap the child without considering his health. They are assumed suspects of criminal activity for disobeying medical orders. But then, as I said earlier, the emotions involved in seeing a child in pain with doctors unable to do anything cannot be used as evidence in the Courts.

Constitution once again proves it is emotionless. Practical, effective, but emotionless.

Why the UK Does Not Need a “Revenge Porn” Law

Many of us were puzzled when the UK Courts voted against having a “revenge porn” law. I mean, social media is a potentially hazardous environment to one’s personal information, especially intimate ones. Ex-lovers, taking it out against their former partners, upload explicit media for everyone in their networks to see to tarnish the reputation of the other.

And oftentimes, this particular media is spread to different websites, allowing search engines like Google to easily find the particular information due to its repeated appearance.

The “revenge porn” law will protect victims of such slanderous publicity to file litigation against their former partner.

So why would the UK courts want to stop the revenge porn law?

Well, my opinion is that today, the UK courts are facing modern terms. Terminologies like cyber bullying, revenge porn, trolling and other undesirable and hostile internet activities are yet to be integrated in the constitution. If the UK courts approve a law that uses an ambiguous word, then the law is ambiguous in itself.

The second thing is that the UK already has a co-author or co-creator agreement law. This publishing law requires that the published content online should have the approval of the two parties or else, the uploader is responsible for breaching the trust of the other owner. If they add a new revenge porn law, which has almost the same statements, then it can become a confusing constitution.